: Don: The "state capitalist" system never turned a profit,
SDF: Which Andor and Summers show is irrelevant to the efficiency of businesses -- state capitalist businesses often didn't turn a profit because they were there to benefit consumers. By contrast, today's eastern European economy exists solely for the benefit of a tiny coterie of plutocrats, if we are to believe Andor and Summers.
: and couldn't even support itself.
SDF: Today's eastern Europe can't support itself either. Why the double standard?
: Don: The mismanagement of the communist past continues to haunt Eastern Europe . . .
SDF: Now it's capitalist mismanagement.
: Don: I agree it takes a while to get a healthy market working. I tend to think that "cold turkey" is the best way to get off of socialism . .
SDF: This is where Andor and Summers would disagree with you. And they have several bookfuls of evidence to support their argument. Where is your evidence?
: : As Andor and Summers point out, with reference to procapitalist research, marketization in no way indicates superior economic performance. The authors point to the on-again, off-again successes of the (not thoroughly marketized) Japanese and German economies as counterevidence. They further argue that
it is true that privatized firms are often more profitable than when under public ownership. This does not however imply that public firms have been mismanaged. It is more commonly the case that public firms simply have lower regulated profits, to the benefit of consumers. p. 89
: Don: Hmm. The post office raises the cost of stamps, and then you have to go buy 1 cent stamps in order to use the 32 cent ones you bought just before the price raise. Can you imagine a private company that treats it's customers that way?
SDF: 1) Yes. 2) This is your only argument?
: : : Don: I read your post. That is what my point is based on. In your post a thin parallel was drawn, and your argument was based upon that. Your castle has no foundation.
: : SDF: More out-of-hand dismissal.
: Don: No. You drew a thin parallel (which can always be done), which you then used in an ad-hominism argument.
"Don: Your castle has no foundation.
SDF: More out-of-hand dismissal
Don:...you then used in an ad-hominism (sic) argument."
Whose ad-hominem was that?
BTW, there's plenty of evidence here...